To link to the entire object, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed the entire object, paste this HTML in websiteTo link to this page, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed this page, paste this HTML in website

The Griffin: volume 50, issue 05 - Oct. 12, 1979

The Griffin: volume 50, issue 05 - Oct. 12, 1979

One of the main concerns of the proposal is incorporating the hockey budget into the athletic program budget. In the proposal, there is a budget request of $27,- 800. No one has been able to answer questions regarding, "Will the athletic department require a budget increase to carry the program?" or "Will qther areas in the present athletic program have to be cut back on?" An ad-hoc committee, headed by Dr. James Lauffenberger, was appointed to "hold college-wide hearings" and to report its findings to Demske on December 1st, regarding the general concensus on the hockey proposal. Next week's meeting will be instrumental to the Committee's report. this time. While the Athletic Board and the personnel involved with club hockey are very familiar with the proposal, still a considerable part of the faculty at large, the administration, and student body are not aware of the nature of the hockey proposal or of its implications."Meanwhile, numerous sources are speaking out strongly in favor of the proposal. Advisor to the Hockey Club, Dr. David B. Dietz elaborated on the advantages of the orgranization moving to Division III in terms of the effect it would have on the players. Dietz said, "Presently our players have to contribute substantially to the club's funding. For example, our total budget last year was $10,465 and our expenses ran over $16,000. The left-over cost had to be taken up by the hockey players themselves, who each had to pay an assessment, and through (continued on page 7) This proposal received strong (continued on page 2) The Senate also discussed the possibility of creating committee to review constitutions. USA president Giesler, presented the proposal and stated that the committee would have two functions: to review new constitutions submitted to the senate for approval, and to establish an on-going review of present club constitutions, so that the Finance Committee would know what the status of various clubs at the end of the year. The committee's recommendations will be given to Levey's office for consideration on implementation.regulations, and explain them. In the past, we have violated them due to ignorance." According to Ferraro, the policy will cite "drinking hours" and places on campus where drinking will be restricted. It will also define the difference between an open and closed party. Fassl noted that, "the policy will list State Liquor laws and "We are examining the alcohol policies of other colleges and deriving from them what policies we feel are right for Canisius/' Ferraro said. Although the committee is just beginning its work on recommendations for formulating a policy, some senators expressed concern that the committee may be too strict in its regulations. Larry Newbree responded to this charge, "It's not going to be a 'dry campus.' Some people feel that this policy is going to come down on alcohol use. It is not." Fassl stated, "We don't want to "reinvent the wheel with regards to a liquor policy on campus. We do have somewhat of a policy, but it is not an adequate policy regarding state law." director of residence life; Arnie Giesler, USA president; Helen Ferraro, CPB chairman; and students, Reenie Lynch and Larry Newbree. Alcohol, Constitutions Discussed by Jim Arnone The function of the new Alcohol Committee on campus was discussed during the Student Senate meeting, Oct. 3. The committee was established to recommend a campus policy on alcohol use. At present, there is no adequate policy on campus, stated Lee Fassl, director of student activities.Tim McNulty, a student senator and a member of the committee, said "The school has been doing things illegally for the past couple of years. That's why we are trying to straighten things out." Other members named to the committee include: Kevin Foley, assistant director of student activities; Pat Zazadil, director of the student center; Rev. James J. Ruddick, S.J.; Dr. Thomas Miller, dean of students; Sam Puma, security director; Sgt. Robert J. Wiza; Lillian Levey, vicepresident of student affairs; Fr. William J. Scanlon, director of campus ministry; Harold Hoare, Lloyd's touchdown catch gives Canisius 21-18 victory over U.B. (See story, page 8.) THE GWFFIN/Bob Gastlc Canisius Hockey Club Hopeful for More Competition in Division 111 Brooks' Issue Debated; Athletic Board Ruling ||; .. jt mBKkW Mr. Lee Fassl, Athletic Board Chairman THE GRIFFIIM/Mary Kay Anderson A few senators felt that because of legal implications that the senate should not respond at all to Brook's letter. Stated Rev. Thomas stated, "I think she has some legitimate point. I don't think that the letter can be construed to be of any help in her case." Brooks has filed a discrimination suit against the school. The matter of response to the letter was given to the Faculty Welfare Committee, which is chaired by Dr. Stafford Thomas. The committee constructed a first draft of their letter of response, and then revised that draft. This revised draft was brought up before the senate for approval, at which several members expressed concern about the wording of the letter, due to the fact that the case may end up in litigation against the school. In response, the Welfare Committee addressed specific requests which Brooks had expounded upon in her letter. Some members of the senate expressed that this could be construed, in a court of law, to mean that the senate felt she was correct in her charges against the school. Brook's letter asked the senators to investigate ambiguities which she feels exist in the process of evaluating a faculty member for tenure status. The letter came after she was denied tenure. by Jim Arnone There was a long-and-heated discussion among faculty senators regarding a response to a letter they received last month from Dr. Dorethea Brooks, at the faculty senate meeting Monday. The senate also announced an agreement concerning the disputed responsibilities of the Athletic Board. Dr. Walter Sharrow, dean of arts and sciences, stated, "impending litigation makes this case special. It might be wise to have a lawyer look at the letter to determine its legal implications." This idea, however, was voted down. A few senators noted that such procedure! quest-ion"; in administrative policy should be considered by the Review Committee on the Faculty Handbook. The Review Committee which met earlier this year is not scheduled to meet again for two years. No text of a letter was agreed to at the meeting. However, the matter was given back to the Faculty Welfare Committee to draft another letter with the following reservations: the letter will not contain any responses to the specific requests which Brooks mentioned in her letter; and that it suggest that she present her questions to the Review Committee when it next meets. The Faculty Senate this week announced an agreement regar(continued on page 7) Roth stated that the response should deal with the requests which Brooks specified in her letter, with out concern of legal implications. He also stated that it is the senate's duty to deal only with responding to the letter as if it were from any other member of the faculty. Edward T. Dunn, S.J., "It may come before the courts, I think we should drop it like a hot potato." Rev. Joseph S. Roth, S.J., felt that it is the faculty senate's responsibility to deal with the problems of the faculty and that the senate should take some action in the case. "A faculty member is leaving with 'you are not qualified to teach here' applied to here . . . and we're not willing to respond to her," Roth stated. Demske's views on the issue were summarized in a letter to Mrs. Levey dated May 30,1979. He said, "While the proposal seems to be heading in the right direction, still it would cause real problems if a decisions were to be made at She also added, "We know what hockey's budget would be now, but where would it go in 10 years?" Her predictions have the budget rising at an annual raft of 10%. Dr. Daniel Starr, athletic director, when asked for an estimation, envisioned the hockey budget escalating to between "$40,000 to $50,000 within the next 3 to 5 years." Both Levey and Starr are "in favor of the hockey proposal." The Athletic Board unanimously approved the proposal when it was first submitted last spring. The proposal was then sent to Rev. James M. Demske, college president, for his approval, however, here it met with a setback.Lillian Levey, vice president of student affairs, described the idea of hockey changing its status at Canisius as being something of which "the total picture will have to be reviewed." by Anne Kozera The Canisius College Hockey Club is considering a move from club level status to NCAA Division III. The Athletic Board will hold hearings on Wednesday and Thursday, October 17th and 18th, on the hockey proposal.

This image is issued by Canisius College Archives. Use of the image requires written permission from the Archives. It may not be sold or redistributed as a photograph, electronic file, or any other media. The image should not be significantly altered through conventional or electronic means. Images altered beyond standard cropping and resizing require further negotiation with a staff member. The user is responsible for all issues of copyright. Please credit: Canisius College Archives and Special Collections, Andrew L. Bouwhuis Library, Canisius College.

This image is issued by Canisius College Archives. Use of the image requires written permission from the Archives. It may not be sold or redistributed as a photograph, electronic file, or any other media. The image should not be significantly altered through conventional or electronic means. Images altered beyond standard cropping and resizing require further negotiation with a staff member. The user is responsible for all issues of copyright. Please credit: Canisius College Archives and Special Collections, Andrew L. Bouwhuis Library, Canisius College.

Technical Data

1647.5 KB

Transcript

One of the main concerns of the proposal is incorporating the hockey budget into the athletic program budget. In the proposal, there is a budget request of $27,- 800. No one has been able to answer questions regarding, "Will the athletic department require a budget increase to carry the program?" or "Will qther areas in the present athletic program have to be cut back on?" An ad-hoc committee, headed by Dr. James Lauffenberger, was appointed to "hold college-wide hearings" and to report its findings to Demske on December 1st, regarding the general concensus on the hockey proposal. Next week's meeting will be instrumental to the Committee's report. this time. While the Athletic Board and the personnel involved with club hockey are very familiar with the proposal, still a considerable part of the faculty at large, the administration, and student body are not aware of the nature of the hockey proposal or of its implications."Meanwhile, numerous sources are speaking out strongly in favor of the proposal. Advisor to the Hockey Club, Dr. David B. Dietz elaborated on the advantages of the orgranization moving to Division III in terms of the effect it would have on the players. Dietz said, "Presently our players have to contribute substantially to the club's funding. For example, our total budget last year was $10,465 and our expenses ran over $16,000. The left-over cost had to be taken up by the hockey players themselves, who each had to pay an assessment, and through (continued on page 7) This proposal received strong (continued on page 2) The Senate also discussed the possibility of creating committee to review constitutions. USA president Giesler, presented the proposal and stated that the committee would have two functions: to review new constitutions submitted to the senate for approval, and to establish an on-going review of present club constitutions, so that the Finance Committee would know what the status of various clubs at the end of the year. The committee's recommendations will be given to Levey's office for consideration on implementation.regulations, and explain them. In the past, we have violated them due to ignorance." According to Ferraro, the policy will cite "drinking hours" and places on campus where drinking will be restricted. It will also define the difference between an open and closed party. Fassl noted that, "the policy will list State Liquor laws and "We are examining the alcohol policies of other colleges and deriving from them what policies we feel are right for Canisius/' Ferraro said. Although the committee is just beginning its work on recommendations for formulating a policy, some senators expressed concern that the committee may be too strict in its regulations. Larry Newbree responded to this charge, "It's not going to be a 'dry campus.' Some people feel that this policy is going to come down on alcohol use. It is not." Fassl stated, "We don't want to "reinvent the wheel with regards to a liquor policy on campus. We do have somewhat of a policy, but it is not an adequate policy regarding state law." director of residence life; Arnie Giesler, USA president; Helen Ferraro, CPB chairman; and students, Reenie Lynch and Larry Newbree. Alcohol, Constitutions Discussed by Jim Arnone The function of the new Alcohol Committee on campus was discussed during the Student Senate meeting, Oct. 3. The committee was established to recommend a campus policy on alcohol use. At present, there is no adequate policy on campus, stated Lee Fassl, director of student activities.Tim McNulty, a student senator and a member of the committee, said "The school has been doing things illegally for the past couple of years. That's why we are trying to straighten things out." Other members named to the committee include: Kevin Foley, assistant director of student activities; Pat Zazadil, director of the student center; Rev. James J. Ruddick, S.J.; Dr. Thomas Miller, dean of students; Sam Puma, security director; Sgt. Robert J. Wiza; Lillian Levey, vicepresident of student affairs; Fr. William J. Scanlon, director of campus ministry; Harold Hoare, Lloyd's touchdown catch gives Canisius 21-18 victory over U.B. (See story, page 8.) THE GWFFIN/Bob Gastlc Canisius Hockey Club Hopeful for More Competition in Division 111 Brooks' Issue Debated; Athletic Board Ruling ||; .. jt mBKkW Mr. Lee Fassl, Athletic Board Chairman THE GRIFFIIM/Mary Kay Anderson A few senators felt that because of legal implications that the senate should not respond at all to Brook's letter. Stated Rev. Thomas stated, "I think she has some legitimate point. I don't think that the letter can be construed to be of any help in her case." Brooks has filed a discrimination suit against the school. The matter of response to the letter was given to the Faculty Welfare Committee, which is chaired by Dr. Stafford Thomas. The committee constructed a first draft of their letter of response, and then revised that draft. This revised draft was brought up before the senate for approval, at which several members expressed concern about the wording of the letter, due to the fact that the case may end up in litigation against the school. In response, the Welfare Committee addressed specific requests which Brooks had expounded upon in her letter. Some members of the senate expressed that this could be construed, in a court of law, to mean that the senate felt she was correct in her charges against the school. Brook's letter asked the senators to investigate ambiguities which she feels exist in the process of evaluating a faculty member for tenure status. The letter came after she was denied tenure. by Jim Arnone There was a long-and-heated discussion among faculty senators regarding a response to a letter they received last month from Dr. Dorethea Brooks, at the faculty senate meeting Monday. The senate also announced an agreement concerning the disputed responsibilities of the Athletic Board. Dr. Walter Sharrow, dean of arts and sciences, stated, "impending litigation makes this case special. It might be wise to have a lawyer look at the letter to determine its legal implications." This idea, however, was voted down. A few senators noted that such procedure! quest-ion"; in administrative policy should be considered by the Review Committee on the Faculty Handbook. The Review Committee which met earlier this year is not scheduled to meet again for two years. No text of a letter was agreed to at the meeting. However, the matter was given back to the Faculty Welfare Committee to draft another letter with the following reservations: the letter will not contain any responses to the specific requests which Brooks mentioned in her letter; and that it suggest that she present her questions to the Review Committee when it next meets. The Faculty Senate this week announced an agreement regar(continued on page 7) Roth stated that the response should deal with the requests which Brooks specified in her letter, with out concern of legal implications. He also stated that it is the senate's duty to deal only with responding to the letter as if it were from any other member of the faculty. Edward T. Dunn, S.J., "It may come before the courts, I think we should drop it like a hot potato." Rev. Joseph S. Roth, S.J., felt that it is the faculty senate's responsibility to deal with the problems of the faculty and that the senate should take some action in the case. "A faculty member is leaving with 'you are not qualified to teach here' applied to here . . . and we're not willing to respond to her," Roth stated. Demske's views on the issue were summarized in a letter to Mrs. Levey dated May 30,1979. He said, "While the proposal seems to be heading in the right direction, still it would cause real problems if a decisions were to be made at She also added, "We know what hockey's budget would be now, but where would it go in 10 years?" Her predictions have the budget rising at an annual raft of 10%. Dr. Daniel Starr, athletic director, when asked for an estimation, envisioned the hockey budget escalating to between "$40,000 to $50,000 within the next 3 to 5 years." Both Levey and Starr are "in favor of the hockey proposal." The Athletic Board unanimously approved the proposal when it was first submitted last spring. The proposal was then sent to Rev. James M. Demske, college president, for his approval, however, here it met with a setback.Lillian Levey, vice president of student affairs, described the idea of hockey changing its status at Canisius as being something of which "the total picture will have to be reviewed." by Anne Kozera The Canisius College Hockey Club is considering a move from club level status to NCAA Division III. The Athletic Board will hold hearings on Wednesday and Thursday, October 17th and 18th, on the hockey proposal.